> Addid junio and git to the cc just to bring up this issue of bad UI> once again. I realize it could break old scripts to start up an editor> window, but still..

It is a non-starter to unconditionally start an editor. We would need agood way for users to conveniently say "I am doing this unusual merge thatneeds to be justified, and I want an editor to write my justification".

Obviously, "git merge -e regulator/for-linus" would work and is just threekeystrokes, which can be said "convenient enough" once the user gets usedto, but I think this is still inadequate as a solution, as the realproblem is it is _too_ easy to forget to give the option. Until the userbecomes _aware_ of the issues, it will not even occur to the user thats/he _has_ to justify a merge (or not create a merge at all) in certaincircumstances and directions. After all, you have been repeating the "donot make meaningless merges" for the past five years on the list. UI tweakalone will not fix that.

If we are to rely on user's conscious action, I think it may be somethinglike a set of configurations that say things like:

- This branch is for advancing a specific topic, and not for merging random development that happen elsewhere;

- This branch is for merging works by people downstream from me;

- This remote tracking branch (and by extension that branch at that remote that uses this as its remote tracking branch) is my upstream and I should not be merging back from it; and

- This remote tracking branch is my downstream, and I should freely merge it when I heard it is ready.

and depending on the combination of what is being merged into what, togglethe --edit option by default for "git merge" when neither "--edit" nor"--no-edit" is given, just like "git merge" defaults to "--edit" whenmerging an annotated tag.